Interpersonal Attraction

Home , Interpersonal attraction

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232499237

Interpersonal attraction.

Chapter · January 1994

CITATIONS READS 53 2,900

2 authors, including:

Jeffry A Simpson University of Minnesota Twin Cities 216 PUBLICATIONS 15,122 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Early unpredictability, attachment, emotion regulation, and reproductive behavior View project

Current Projects View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jeffry A Simpson on 28 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. ------zq

Chapter 3

Interpersonal Attraction

JEFFRY A. SIMPSON BEITY A. HARRIS Texas A&M University Texas A&M University

Introduction Interpersonal Attraction: Definition, Measurement, and a Model P Variables Social Motives Social Deficiencies In terpersonal Expectancies E Variables Physical Proximity Features of the Physical and Social Environment o Variables Physical Attractiveness Personality P x 0 Variables Similarity Between P and 0 Complementarity Reciprocal Liking Conclusion and Summary In recent weeks, Susan has been thinking about starting a new romantic relationship. Although she is neither lonely nor depressed, Susan's high needs for inti~ macy and affiliation have not been satisfied by her current group of friends and acquaintances. Since moving to a new apartment complex three months ago, she has had casual yet repeated contact with a man named John who recently moved into an apartment two doors down from her. While Susan has exchanged little more than formal greetings and pleasant glances with John, she has begun to find him increasingly more attractive. Similar to Susan, John is a sociable and physically attractive person. In light of his attractiveness, Susan assumes that he must be a warm, self-confident, and talented individual. The following week, Susan and John separately attend a large party for residents of the apartment complex. The party is held in a dimly lit, cool room filled with soft, pleasant music. Despite the fact that Susan and John happen to be in very good moods, both are somewhat apprehensive about having to meet and interact with new people. After getting up the nerve, Susan approaches John and starts a conversation. From the outset, her nonverbal behavior toward him is very positive; she maintains eye contact, smiles, laughs, and adopts a relaxed, open body posture. Within minutes, she discovers that John is indeed a very warm and interesting person, someone whom she both likes and respects. As they pass the evening together, Susan learns that she and John have similar attitudes, personality characteristics, personal backgrounds, and leisure interests. Moreover, Susan senses that John likes her just as much as she likes him. By the end of the night, they have embarked on a new relationship. This scenario highlights many of the factors that are known to increase interpersonal attraction during the initial stages of relationship formation. As this example illustrates, interpersonal attraction is best conceptualized as a dynamic process that unfolds over time and is governed by a myriad of different precipitating events. Two aspects of this vignette are worth empha- sizing. First, even though the precise sequence of events that produce attraction can vary depending on the nature of the relationship and the circumstances under which it develops (Berscheid and Graziano 1978), interpersonal attraction often does not commence unless a person: wants to initiate a relationship; is in close enough physical proximity with an individual to establish and sustain interaction; and has the social skills necessary to initiate and maintain the relationship. Once these prerequisites have been met, features associated with the other person (John) and the unique fit between the two interactants (John and Susan) can influence the attraction process. Second, contrary to popular wisdom, the extent to which a given perceiver (Susan) is attracted to another person (John) often depends as much on the attributes of the perceiver (e.g., Susan's current needs, desires and social skills), the environment in which the initial interaction takes place, and the unique fit between the perceiver and the other (e.g., the degree to which Susan and John are similar) as it does on the quality of attributes possessed by the other (John). Interpersonal attraction, therefore, is much more than merely the sum of positive features associated with the object of attraction. Every relationship can be traced back to its beginning, a point in time when partners first met and the relationship was not close. To date, most research on interpersonal attraction has focused on why people initially become attracted to one another during the early stages of relationship formation. Considerably less attention has been devoted to examining what kinds of factors maintain attraction during the latter stages of relationship development. Given these circumstances, the present chapter will predominantly focus on factors known to increase or decrease attraction between people involved in the early stages of relationship formation, usually prior to the development of pronounced closeness. In reviewing the attraction literature, we will draw from several different disciplines, including anthropology, sociology and social psychology. The primary perspective guiding our review, however, will be social psychology. Social psychologists "attempt to understand and explain how the thought, feeling, and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others" (Allport 1954,pp. 5). Hence, we will seek to understand how the actual, imagined, or implied actions of one person affect the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of another person as the attraction process unfolds. We first present a formal definition of interpersonal attraction and explain how the construct traditionally has been measured. We then describe a general model of relationship closeness proposed by Harold Kelley and his colleagues (Kelley et al. 1983) into which most of the major variables known to facilitate attraction can be classified. Next, we selectively review the interpersonal attraction literature, highlighting how existing research on attraction can be organized within the Kelley et al. model. Whenever possible, we specify what kinds of psychological theories or principles have been invoked to explain why certain variables influence interpersonal attraction. In the final section, we speculate about where conceptual and empirical gaps exist in the field of interpersonal attraction, and we suggest some possible avenues for future research.

Interpersonal Attraction: Definition, Measurement, and a Model

Interpersonal attraction can be defined as a motivational state in which an individual is predisposed to think, feel, and usually behave in a positive manner toward another person (Berscheid 1985).Over the years, the attraction construct has been operationalized and measured in different ways. Most frequently, it has been assessed by simply asking perceivers to provide self-reports of how much they like, respect, have positive feelings toward, and/ or harbor positive thoughts about someone else. Somewhat less often, the construct has been measured by peer-reports (provided by friends, siblings or parents) designed to index the degree to which two people appear to be attracted to each other and by life record data (e.g., permanent records of who marries whom). On relatively rare occasions, attraction has been inferred from behavioral measures of who chooses to be with whom and/or the quality and emotional tone of interaction that transpires between two people. Interpersonal· attraction can and often does begin in the absence of direct contact. Yet attraction typically cannot progress beyond rudimentary stages unless two people eventually interact. Indeed, positive regard for someone usually occurs between, and is shaped by the quality of interactIons that transpire between, two people (Berscheid 1985). Drawing on this premise, Kelley et al. (1983) have developed a model of relationship closeness which contends that the nature and quality of interactions two people have are influenced by four casual conditions: P variables (attributes specific to the person evaluating the other: e.g., Susan); E variables (factors that characterize the physical and social environment in which the relationship begins and is embedded); 0 variables (attributes specific to the other who serves as the target of evaluation: e.g., John); and P x 0 variables (emergent variables that are unique to the relationship between P and 0: e.g., the fit between Susan and John). These four sets of precipitating conditions and the variables that constitute them are dynamic and interactive in nature (Gifford and Gallagher 1985; Wright, Ingraham, and Blackmer 1985). For example, the kinds of attributes that P brings to an initial encounter can drastically alter what P values in 0 as well as whether P and 0 have-or can develop-common interests. Similarly, the' environmental context in which an initial interaction takes place can profoundly affect whether P finds 0 appealing and, hence, whether P and 0 interact long enough to identify their similarities or feelings of mutual attraction. To simplify our presentation, we have classified each of the major variables known to heighten or diminish attraction into one of the four categories identified by Kelley et al. (1983). Because interpersonal attraction typically begins with the attributes that P brings to an initial encounter, we first review variables associated with P that tend to promote or inhibit the initial stages of the attraction process. We then examine how features of the environment (E) influence attraction, especially during the early stages of relationship formation (first encounters). Follow- ing this, we review what sorts of attributes possessed by 0 affect interpersonal attraction. We conclude by exploring how the unique fit between P and 0 influ- ences attraction.

Susan's attraction to John was facilitated from the outset by her specific motives, predispositions, and social skills. She had strong needs for intimacy and affiliation that were not being met by her existing social network. She was neither lonely nor depressed, and she approached John expecting that he was warm, would like her, and would reciprocate her warmth and positive feelings. Past research has shown that the type of social motives, social deficiencies and interpersonal expectancies a person brings to a social encounter can dramatically affect the degree to which a person is attracted to another individual.

Social Motives People typically seek out relationships to satisfy their needs for affiliation and/ or intimacy (McClelland 1951;McAdams 1982).Individuals who have a strong need to affiliate with others tend to establish and maintain a large number of social contacts. To meet this need, they adopt an active and controlling orientation toward relationships in which breadth and quantity of social ties assume para- mount importance (McClelland 1985).Persons high in need for affiliation tend to spend more time talking to other people (McClelland 1985), are more self-confident (Crouse and Mehrabian 1977),and make more friends during the school year (Greendlinger and Byrne 1985). Conversely, persons with a high need for intimacy prefer a smaller number of close, warm, and intimate relationships. As a result, they tend to adopt a more passive and less controlling style in which depth and quality of relationships are stressed. People high in need for intimacy usually are more trusting, confide more in others, and experience greater subjective well-being (McAdams and Bryant 1987;McAdams, Healy, and Krause 1984). Individuals who have strong intimacy needs tend to display better long-term psychological adjustment than do those who possess strong needs for affiliation (McAdams and Vaillant 1982).This implies that attraction which is based on the quality of relationships might yield greater long-term happiness and personal satisfaction than attraction that stems from sheer quantity of social contacts.

Social Deficiencies Three major types of social deficiencies impede social interaction and, therefore, hinder the development of interpersonal attraction: social anxiety, loneliness, and depression. Social anxiety involves feelings of discomfort and awkwardness when in the presence of others (Leary 1983). Even though it can have many different origins (Leary 1987), acute social anxiety frequently emanates from concerns about proper self-presentation in social settings (Schlenker and Leary 1982),and it is closely linked to chronic shyness (Zimbardo 1977).Extreme anxiety thwarts initial attraction by trapping people in a cycle of negative social interactions in which social withdrawal on the part of P is interpreted as rejection by O. This leads 0 to rebuff P, thereby justifying and thus perpetuating P's high level of anxiety (Jones and Carpenter 1986).These events are compounded by the fact that highly anxious persons are more likely to over-interpret or misinterpret innocuous events that occur in their interactions (Maddox, Norton, and Leary 1988),further exacerbating their timid, reclusive nature. Loneliness is perhaps the most common social deficiency. It typically occurs during important life transitions (e.g., moving away to college) and major life disruptions (e.g., the loss of a long-term romantic partner). Perlman and Peplau (1981) define loneliness as a feeling of deprivation originating from unsatisfactory social relations with others. Two distinct types of loneliness have been identified (Weiss 1973): social isolation (which is felt when social contacts are too infrequent); and emotional isolation (which is experienced when in-depth, emotion- ally close relationships are lacking). Loneliness impedes social interaction in much the same way as does acute anxiety. During social encounters, lonely individuals tend to be less responsive to, less sensitive to, and less intimate with their interaction partners. Consequently, they are perceived by others as being less socially competent (Sloan and Solano 1984; Spitzberg and Carney 1985). Depression also can generate interaction styles that sharply curtail the development of attraction. Depressed people often reject and dismiss others, have awkward and inadequate social skills, and are rejected by others in turn (Hokan- son, et aI. 1986; Strack and Coyne 1983). These three deficiencies oftentimes are witnessed simultaneously in a given individual (Jones and Carpenter 1986). In fact, the presence of one deficiency can induce the others. Chronic social anxiety, for instance, often elicits social rejection from others. Over time, repeated rejection can produce loneliness and, in extreme cases, depression. What links these deficiencies together is that all three impede interpersonal attraction by making people more socially cautious when commu- nicating with others (Pietromonaco and Rook 1987; Vaux 1988). By avoiding situations that pose the threat of social rejection, persons who harbor these deficiencies perpetuate their isolation and cannot progress to latter stages of the attraction process.

Interpersonal Expectancies It has long been known that, prior to meeting someone, the mere anticipation of interaction can heighten attraction to them (Darley and Berscheid 1967). In recent years, researchers have begun to identify how specific expectancies that a person brings to an initial encounter can alter the degree of attraction experienced toward others. Two of the most important expectancies are perceptions of others, physical attractiveness and beliefs concerning whether they initially like us. Mark Snyder and his colleagues have shown that when men think they are talking to an attractive woman over a phone (independent of her actual appearance), women behave in a more friendly, sociable, and skilled manner than when men are led to believe that the woman is unattractive (Snyder, Tanke, and Ber- scheid 1977). That is, expectancies about another person's level of physical attractiveness can channel interactions between men and women such that men bring out positive attributes in women whom they believe are attractive and negative attributes in women whom they presume are unattractive. These different styles of interaction affect the extent of attraction interactants feel for each other. Furthermore, when people enter an interaction believing that their partner likes them, they disclose more, disagree less, adopt a warmer attitude, and talk in a more pleasant tone of voice (Curtis and Miller 1986). This behavior elicits reciprocal warmth from the partner. Thus, perceptions of liking-even if they are not true-can stimulate positive communication and increase attraction.

One of the primary reasons why Susan initially became attracted to John was his close proximity to her, a situation that allowed for frequent (albeit informal and fleeting) contact. Moreover, when Susan approached John to strike up a formal conversation at the party, the physical and social environment was highly conducive for fostering attraction: the room was dimly lit, cool, and filled with soft, pleasant music. Despite the fact that Susan was in a good mood, she approached John feeling a diffuse sense of arousal and excitement. More than three decades of research has revealed that all of these factors tend to fuel interpersonal attraction.

Physical Proximity Perhaps the best predictor of whether two people eventually will like one another is the sheer amount of contact they have. Needless to say, individuals must meet and interact for attraction to fully blossom. This point is most eloquently illus- trated in a classic study by Leon Festinger and his colleagues. Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) studied friendship patterns in a large student housing complex where apartments were assigned randomly (i.e., on a first come, first served basis). The strongest predictor of who eventually became friends with whom was the location of their apartments. Persons who lived close together and came in contact with each other more often were more likely to become friends. Indeed, close proximity has been found to increase attraction among soldiers assigned to bomber crews (Kipnis 1957), college students assigned to alphabetized seats in their classes (Segal 1974),senior citizens randomly placed in high-rise apartment complexes (Nahemow and Lawton 1975),and homeowners in new subdivisions (Whyte 1956). In each case, persons who are closer to and have more frequent contact with each other tend to become better friends. The effects of proximity, of course, are not always positive. Some of the people we dislike the most also tend to live nearby (Ebbesen, Kjos, and Konecni 1976). Thus, proximity provides the opportunity for interaction; it does not determine its quality. Why does proximity generally increase attraction? Five plausible reasons exist. First, Zajonc (1968)has argued that repeated exposure to objects or people produces increased liking because familiar things are presumed to be safe and, hence, comforting. Although there are limits to this mere exposure effect (Harri- son 1977;Perlman and Oskamp 1971;Swap 1977),it serves as one of the primary means through which proximity increases attraction. Even relatively infrequent exposure to a person (e.g., seeing someone briefly once a week) can increase attraction (Saegert, Swap, and Zajonc 1973).Second, frequent interaction typically enhances perceptions of the similarity between people, thereby facilitating attraction (Moreland and Zajonc 1982).Third, frequent contact allows people to explore their actual similarities and sense reciprocal liking for each other (Insko and Wilson 1977), permitting them to see themselves as a social unit (Arkin and Burger 1980).Fourth, regular interaction leads people to anticipate future contact which, in turn, enhances liking (Darley and Berscheid 1967). Anticipation of interaction generates liking because, by presuming that others Will be pleasant, people can maximize any rewards that might emerge from the forthcoming interaction (Knight and Vallacher 1981; Tyler and Sears 1977). Fifth, individuals in close proximity are more readily accessible and available. Hence, they can provide rewards without inflicting the costs of time, effort, and money associated with persons who are not nearby.

Features of the Physical and Social Environment Various features of the physical environment in which an interaction takes place can have subtle yet dramatic effects on interpersonal attraction. When people are evaluated in hot, humid rooms (Griffitt 1970) or in the presence of unpleasant music (May and Hamilton 1980),they tend to be seen as less attractive. Similarly, if raters have just witnessed a distressing event (e.g., a sad movie [Gouaux 1971]) or heard bad news (Veitch and Griffitt 1976), they usually rate others more harshly. What accounts for these effects? According to the Reinforcement-Affect Model (Clore and Byrne 1974),positive emotion is generated when an individual experiences pleasant physical and/or social environments, while negative emotion is produced when environments are unpleasant. This positive or negative affect, in turn, is unwittingly and often unconsciously associated with persons who are present when the affect is experienced. Clore and Byrne conjecture that positive emotion produces attraction to others, whereas negative emotion results in repulsion. Certain aspects of the social context in which an interaction occurs also can promote attraction. In an ingenious study, Dutton and Aron(I974) arranged for men to meet an attractive woman after walking over either a low-lying, stable bridge or an unstable bridge situated over a deep ravine. Men who had just crossed the wobbly bridge rated the woman as more attractive than did those who walked across the stable one. Although their interpretation of this finding has been the subject of debate (Kenrick and Cialdini 1977;Kenrick, Cialdini, and Linder 1979), Dutton and Aron argue.that the intense arousal associated with traversing the unstable bridge was mistakenly attributed to strong liking for the woman, a misattribution that produced greater attraction. Working from a different perspective, Stanley Schachter. (I959) has shown that situationally-induced fear can heighten attraction toward others who must confront the same threatening situation, especially in individuals who were born first in their families. Events that provoke stress and fear, however, produce greater attraction only when affiliation with others can reduce the negative impact of the stressor (Rofe 1984).Stressful situations do not yield greater attraction when others cannot reduce or ameliorate their unpleasantness (Sarnoff and Zim- bardo 1961). The extent to which a person is seen as attractive also is contingent on whether the person is evaluated in relation to highly attractive others (e.g., models), when during the course of a social evening evaluations are made, and whether parents or authority figures approve of the relationship. Douglas Ken- rick and his colleagues have found that men rate their dating partners as less physically attractive (Kenrick and Gutierres 1980) and report less love for them (Kenrick, Gutierres, and Goldberg 1989) after viewing highly attractive female models. Male patrons of country-and-western bars tend to rate women as more attractive as the night wears on (Pennebaker et al. 1979).And borrowing an idea from the play Romeo and Juliet, Driscoll, Davis, and Lipatz (1972) have demon- strated that interference by parents in their son's or daughter's dating relationship breeds greater mutual attraction and commitment among young lovers. What psychological principle explains some of these effects? One viable can- didate is reactance theory (Brehm 1966). Psychological reactance is a negative motivational state that begins to operate when individuals feel that their freedom to behave as they want to is unfairly restricted. One means by which people attempt to reinstate their freedom is to distort the attractiveness of the objects on which restrictions have been imposed. Thus, as closing time draws near, all of the women suddenly become more appealing. And as interference by parents esca- lates, one's lover is perceived as more desirable.

Susan was also drawn to John because of the positive attributes he possessed. To begin with, he was a physically attractive person. On the basis of his attractiveness, Susan implicitly assumed that he possessed a host of other admirable characteristics, an assumption that subtly altered Susan's conversational behavior toward John and elicited positive verbal and nonverbal behavior from him at the party. While conversing with him, Susan learned that John's personal attributes were just as stellar as was his physical appearance; John conveyed the impression of being highly likable and a person worthy of admiration and respect. Empirical studies have shown that all of these features enhance attraction.

Physical Attractiveness Physical attractiveness differs from other personal attributes in that it serves as the first and sometimes only characteristic of others that individuals can evaluate in the absence of direct contact. In light of this fact, physical attractiveness is unique among attributes of 0 because it can strongly influence interpersonal attraction during the earliest stages of the attraction process (Berscheid and Wal- ster 1974; Hatfield and Sprecher 1986). Most other personal attributes (e.g., O's personality, attitudes, and values) can be inferred only after direct interaction has taken place. As a result, attributes other than physical attractiveness tend to play a more important role during later stages of attraction. Why does physical attractiveness facilitate global attraction? Attractive people usually reward those with whom they associate in at least four different ways. First, attractive people are more aesthetically pleasing to look at. Second, they tend to be more socially skilled (Goldman and Lewis 1977) and, therefore, more rewarding as interaction partners. Third, individuals can reap benefits by associ- ating with highly attractive others (Waller 1937). Friends of attractive same-sex peers, for example, are rated by others as more attractive simply through their association with attractive peers (Geiselman, Haight, and Kimata 1984;Kernis and Wheeler 1981). In addition, men who date attractive women are evaluated more highly than men who do not (Sigall and Landy 1973),although women do not accrue similar benefits from dating attractive men (Bar-Tal and Saxe 1976).Fourth, people tacitly assume that attractive people are good people (Dion, Berscheid, and Wal- ster 1972).Regardless of their actual attributes, attractive people are believed to be more poised, interesting, sociable, independent, exciting, and sexually warm than their less attractive counterparts (Brigham 1980). Attractive persons also are con- sidered to be more intelligent, more successful, and happier (Hatfield and Sprecher 1986). Less attractive individuals, on the other hand, are presumed to be more deviant in terms of psychopathology, their political views, and their sexual life- style (Jones, Harmson, and Phillips 1978; Unger, Hilderbrand, and Madar 1982). This "beautiful-is-good" stereotype facilitates attraction in two ways. First, by believing that attractive people have a variety of desirable features, the aesthetic rewards associated with being in their presence increase. Second, by harboring this stereotype, individuals behave in ways that actually elicit good deeds, attributes, and actions from attractive people (Langlois 1986). In general, however, this stereotype is not completely true. While physically attractive persons do tend to be more socially skilled (Chaiken 1979; Goldman and Lewis 1977), more socially assertive (Jackson and Huston 1975), . less prone to psychological disorders (Hatfield and Sprecher 1986), more successful at attaining higher levels of education, income, and occupational status (Umberson and Hughes 1984), and have more satisfying interactions with others (Reis, Nezlek, and Wheeler 1980), they do not possess all of the positive features embodied in the stereotype. Most individuals, however, treat attractive persons as if they do. Because of this, these desirable features are elicited from attractive people during social interaction, heightening their global ap- peal (Langlois 1986). Perceptions of what makes a person physically attractive vary from person to person (Berscheid and Walster 1974) and from culture to culture (Hatfield and Sprecher 1986). Nevertheless, investigators have begun to identify what kinds of physical features make faces attractive to most people. Contrary to popular con- ceptions, Langlois and Roggman (1990) have found that people are most strongly attracted to faces whose features conform to the average of the population. Indi- viduals with facial features that do not deviate too much from what is normal might be perceived as more attractive if such features were associated with other attributes that were adaptive during evolutionary history. Research also has begun to identify what specific kinds of facial features men and women find differentially attractive. Women who have youthful, immature facial features such as relatively large eyes, small noses, small chins, and broad smiles tend to be rated as more attractive by men (Cunningham 1986).Men who have a mixture of immature features (large eyes), mature features (prominent cheek bones and large chins), and expressive features (broad smiles) are viewed as more attractive by women (Cunningham, Barbee, and Pike 1990).Adopting an evolutionary perspective, Cunningham argues that youthful features in women are more attractive because they indicate fertility and high reproductive potential in women. A mixture of mature, immature, and expressive features in men may be perceived as more attractive to the extent that maturity signifies higher status and greater capacity to provide resources, while immaturity and expressiveness convey personal warmth and lack of threat. In line with these speculations, men who display non-aggressive, socially dominant behaviors during social interactions are viewed as more physically attractive than those who do not (Sallada, Kenrick, and Vershure 1987).

Personality Certain personality attributes tend to be universally valued in others, regardless of the idiosyncratic needs of perceivers. When it comes to choosing friends, for example, sincerity is valued most highly, whereas being a liar and phoniness are most abhorred (Anderson 1968). With regard to mate selection, both men and women prefer mates who are good companions, considerate, honest, affectionate, dependable, intelligent, kind, understanding, interesting to converse with, and loyal (Buss and Barnes 1986). Two major components of personality appear to influence global attraction: feelings of affection for another based on warmth, and feelings of respect based on competence (Lydon, Jamieson, and Zanna 1988; Rubin 1973). These two dimensions have relatively independent effects on attraction. More specifically, people who score high on both dimensions are rated as most attractive, whereas those who score low on both dimensions are seen as least attractive. Warmth is communicated by expressing positive attitudes toward other people, objects, or events in general (Folkes and Sears 1977). It also is conveyed by nonverbal behaviors such as smiling at others, paying attention to them, and openly expressing one's emotion (Friedman, Riggio, and Casella 1988;Simpson, Gangested, and Biek 1992). Competence is expressed through intelligence, social skills, and knowledge. Too much competence can sometimes reduce global attraction, particularly if observers feel threatened by excessive talent. 1£highly competent people occasionally make minor blunders, however, such pratfalls can enhance their attractiveness in the eyes of observers (Aronson, Willerman, and Floyd 1966). Finally, individuals also perceive as more attractive persons who are relatively dominant (Palmer and Byrne 1970), competitive (Riskind and Wilson 1982), personally agreeable (Kaplan and Anderson 1973), and those who mutually disclose personal information (McAllister and Bregman 1983).

Once Susan began talking with John, she learned that they shared many similarities. For instance, they held similar views on important issues, they had relatively similar personalities and personal backgrounds, and they liked to do many of the same leisure activities. In essence, their personal attributes and preferences seemed to match up and mesh fairly well. As these commonalties emerged, John and Susan began to sense that their liking for one another was mutual. Research suggests that all of these factors promote attraction.

Similarity between P and 0 One of the strongest predictors of interpersonal attraction is similarity; people who are similar on important attributes and personal preferences tend to experience greater attraction. The tendency for similar people to be attracted to each other has been documented in five areas: attitudes, personality, demographic characteristics, behavioral styles, and physical attractiveness. The bulk of research has been done on attitude similarity (Byrne 1971). At base, two kinds of attitudinal similarity can affect attraction: actual similarity and perceived similarity. In one of the finest interpersonal attraction studies ever conducted, Theodore Newcomb (1961) provided a small group of male under- graduates with room and board in exchange for the opportunity to observe how same-sex friendships develop over time. After information on several attitudinal, personality, and demographic variables was collected, members of the boarding house were randomly assigned to roommates. Men who initially thought they held similar opinions on important issues liked each other more at the beginning of the semester. Once students got to know each other, however, actual attitudinal similarity became a better predictor of who liked whom. That is, men who had similar attitudes were more likely to become friends at the end of the semester. This effect has been replicated among men confined to a small fallout shelter (Griffitt and Veitch 1974), among women in their preferences for college roommates (Hill and Stull 1981), and in a computer dating study (Byrne, Ervin, and Lamberth 1970). Recent research suggests that attitude similarity may be more important in enhancing respect, whereas similarity of personal interests might be more critical in generating liking (Lydon et al. 1988). Personality similarity tends to be a weaker predictor of interpersonal attraction compared to attitudinal similarity. Nevertheless, individuals do prefer others who are similar to themselves in their standing on traditional versus non-traditional sex-role orientation, masculinity versus femininity, sensation-seeking, and cognitive style (Antill 1983; Barry 1970). For personality dimensions on which 10e5 not actually exist, friends frequently assume that it does (Feinberg, <, !~UJSS1981). :,~=:~'::;,~::~,~;iJhoare similar on salient demographic characteristics also experi- "",,,, ':nutual attraction (Newcomb 1961). Best friends in high school, for ,:,::r'cl to be similar with respect to their grade in school, age, sex, race, ::':,c1 social class (Kandel 1978). College dating couples typically are 2i~tE:;c:c cge, IQ, educational plans, religion, race, and even height (Hill, Rubin, 2r,: 1976). , viho adopt similar behavioral styles also are drawn to one another. ,,-:,cl'r;jU2:l,= who are similar in the frequency with which they make personal ssli6:sclc2vres tend to like each other more (Daher and Banikiotes 1976). People :;,::se-i'se ::;:,ose who imitate their positive behaviors and make the same decisions ',.k· (Roberts et al. 1981; Thelen et al. 1981). Finally, friends typically are s;~"LE<,:c i;:, how often they engage in deviant behavior (e.g., drug use: Kandel, 2r,d Kessler 1976). ': 2"::;7:8 involved in relationships usually are matched in their level of physi- '~2, ,,,i,~j 'leness (Feingold 1988). This is true of marriages (Price and Vandenberg relationships (Berscheid et al. 1971), and even same-sex friendships Derlega 1978). Why is this so? Even though most people ideally would Lie:::·) 02 ,-n relationships with persons who are maximally attractive (Walster et '~h2 most attractive individuals tend to pair-off, resulting in a narrowed elf :eLgibles for those who are less attractive. Accordingly, individuals typi- {eti:" relationships with others who are similar to themselves in attractive-

S,iD;]jconfusion in unfamiliar settings (Russ, Gold, and

1 or make us feel special or unique (Snyder and Fromkin 1980). Dis- slIni.Izi''C:':''';·s also are preferred when being similar to someone is threatening 'pJ"'·.the similar other is mentally ill: Novak and Lerner 1968) and when inc',i,v'.:.?'.:::::,s cITe assured from the outset that dissimilar others will like them :<",C! , Nalster 1963).

, ..-0: !-,;';<,';;'·-'''3·'cf.:arity

50\1':: ':i.,,,c'iscs (e.g., Winch 1958) have suggested that opposites should be most 2,:::;acted to one another. According to this view, people should be drawn to o+h':'::'TL::,::~mmaximally gratify their specific needs. As a result, they should. gravitate toward those with complementary needs. Dominant individuals, for instance, should be attracted to submissive persons toward whom dominant actions can be directed, and vice versa. Although complementarity of needs can operate in well established, long-term relationships (Kerckhoff and Davis 1962), it appears to influence such relationships on only a few dimensions and in a limited number of situations (Levinger, Senn, and Jorgensen 1970). Generally speaking, need compatibility (a form of similarity) is a much stronger force in generating attraction between two people than is need complementarity. Despite the fact that little evidence has been marshaled for Winch's theory at the level of personality, attitudes, and demographic characteristics (Berscheid and Walster 1978; Buss 1984), complementarity

Reciprocal Liking As a general rule, people like others who like them and say nice things about them (Sachs 1976). Indeed, one person's liking for another individual is strongly predicated on reciprocal liking (Kenny and Nasby 1980). When people enter new relationships, they tacitly absume that those they like will like them in return (Curry and Emerson 1970). Merely being told that someone either likes us or evaluates us highly produces feelings of reciprocal affection (Berscheid and Wal- ster 1978). How is reciprocal liking generated? Individuals who anticipate that an interaction partner likes them disclose more, disagree less, and exude a warmer demeanor, all of which elicit warmth and reciprocal affection from their partner (Curtis and Miller 1986). Even though people tend to be attracted to those who like them, there are limits to the reciprocity effect. If praise is too extreme or unwarranted, it may be seen as ingratiation driven by ulterior motives (Jones 1964). Under such circumstances, excessive flattery may result in the loss of respect for, and decreased attraction to, the flatterer (Shrauger 1975). Individuals who lavish too much praise on others often have their praise either taken for granted (Aronson and Linder 1965) or are perceived as undiscriminating and less intelligent (Amabile 1983), attributes that undermine attraction. On the whole, people are most strongly attracted to those whose praise and affection is either directed selectively to them (Walster et al. 1973) or who are moderately difficult to attract (Wright and Contrada 1986). Interpersonal attraction is a complicated and dynamic process that occurs over time and is influenced by a wide array of different factors. The vignette describing Susan and John epitomizes how this process frequently unfolds. Prior to meeting John, Susan was prepared to develop a new relationship. The environmental conditions surrounding their relationship-both before and during their first formal conversation-were highly conducive to the development of rapid intimacy and strong attraction. While John's physical attractiveness initially drew Susan's attention, his positive personal attributes substantially increased her liking for him once they started conversing. Within a matter of minutes, they began to identify their similarities and to sense strong, mutual attraction. We are not suggesting that attraction invariably unfolds in this precise sequence. Sometimes it follows different paths. Furthermore, we do not mean to imply that the variables discussed always increase or decrease attraction to others. People occasionally do enter new relationships even though they are not optimally prepared to do so; relationships sometimes do blossom under highly aversive environmental conditions; people can be attracted to others who are physically unattractive (by most people's standards) or who have negative personal attributes; and, in rare cases, individuals sometimes are drawn to persons with whom they share few similarities. These anomalies, however, are exceptions to the general principles discussed. Where should future research on interpersonal attraction be directed? Four possible avenues come to mind. First, considering that attraction is a process that emerges over time, past research has been notoriously static in nature. It typically has isolated and studied only one stage of the attraction process at a time, with a disproportionately large amount of attention having been devoted to 0 and P x o factors at the expense of E and P factors. More longitudinal research needs to be conducted in which the independent and interactive effects of p, E, 0, and P x a variables on interpersonal attraction are studied within relationships as they develop. Attention also should focus on how attraction changes over time within the same relationship. Second, most research to date has studied attraction during the early stages of relationship formation. Less work has examined how attraction is maintained once a relationship becomes close and committed. Johnson and Rusbult (1989) have shown that individuals who are more committed to their romantic relationships devalue and derogate potential alternative partners more strongly than do less committed individuals, especially when alterna- tives are highly attractive and pose a clear threat to the relationship. On a more general level, Simpson, Gangested, and Lerma (1990) have found that people involved in exclusive dating relationships perceive young, opposite-sex persons to be less physically and sexually attractive compared to people who are not dating someone exclusively. This effect may reflect the operation of psychological mechanisms that buffer established relationships from dissolution. At present, however, only a limited number of studies have investigated relationship maintenance processes. Future work should explore how attraction is maintained in long-term relationships. Third, since the needs of P can strongly influence whether the attraction process initiates and how it evolves, far too little attention has been allotted to understanding how the needs of P interact with E, 0, and P x 0 variables to produce strong attraction. Future research should focus more explicitly on the role that personal needs, motives, and drives play in the attraction process. Finally, the majority of research on attraction has centered on same-sex friendships and romantic relationships. Much less attention has been paid to other types of relationships (e.g., gay relationships, relationships between younger and older persons). Future research should redress this shortcoming. Observant readers will note that most of the research cited in this chapter was conducted prior to the early 1980s. What has happened to research on interpersonal attraction during the past decade? Guided by Kelley et al.'s (1983) model of relationship closeness, research has gradually shifted from studying how important variables in the interpersonal attraction process affect relationship initiation to studying how they influence what transpires in close, long-term relationships. Nevertheless, interpersonal attraction research remains alive and well; it now is simply being conducted in the context close relationships.

Allport, G. W. 1954. The historical background of personal attractiveness. Psychonomic Science, modern social psychology. In The handbook of 4:227-28. social psychology, ed. G. Lindzey, vol. 1,3-56. Aronson, E., and S. Worchel. 1966. Similarity Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. versus liking as determin.mts of interper- Amabile, T. M. 1983. Brilliant but cruel: Percep- sonal attractiveness. Psychonomic Science, tions of negative evaluators. Journal of Experi- 5:157-58. mental Social Psychology, 19:146-156. Bar-Tal, D., and L. Saxe. 1976. Perceptions of simi- Anderson, N. H. 1968. Likeableness ratings of 555 larly and dissimilarly attractive couples and personality-trait words. Journal of Personality individuals. Journal of Personality and Social and Social Psychology, 9:272-79. Psychology, 33:772-81. Antill, J. K. 1983. Sex role complementarity versus Barry, W. A. 1970. Marriage research and conflict: similarity in married couples. Journal of Per- An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, sonality and Social Psychology, 45:145-55. 73:41-54. Arkin, R. M., and J. M. Burger. 1980. Effects of Berscheid, E.1985. Interpersonal attraction. In The unit relation tendencies on interpersonal handbook of social psychology, ed. G. Lindzeyand attraction. Social Psychology Quarterly, E. Aronson, 413-484. New York: Random 43:380-91. House. Aronson, E., and D; Linder. 1965. Gain and loss of Berscheid, E., K. Dion, E. Walster, and G. Walster. esteem as determinants of interpersonal at- 1971.Physical attractiveness and dating choice: tractiveness. Journal of Experimental Social A test of the matching hypothesis. Journal of Psychology, 1:156-71. Experimental Social Psychology, 7:173-89. Aronson, E., B. Willerman, and J. Floyd. 1966. Berscheid, E., and W. Graziano. 1978. The initia- The effect of a pratfall on increasing inter- tion of social relationships and interpersonal attraction. In Social exchange in developing rela- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, tionships, ed. R L. Burgess and T. L. Huston, 54:789-97. 31-60. New York: Academic Press. Crouse, B. B., and A Mehrabian. 1977. Affiliation Berscheid, E., and E. Walster. 1974. Physical at- of opposite-sex strangers. Journal of Research tractiveness. In Advances in experimental social in Personality, 11:38-47. psychology, ed. L. Berkowitz, vol. 7, 157-215. Cunningham, M. R 1986.Measuring the physical in New York: Academic Press. physical attractiveness: QUasi-experiments on ---. 1978. Interpersonal attraction, 2nd ed. the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. of Personality and Social Psychology, 50:925-35. Brehm, J. W. 1966. A theory of psychological reac- Cunningham, M. R, A P. Barbee, and C. L. Pike. tance. New York: Random House. 1990. What do women want? Facialmetric as- Brigham, J. C. 1980. Limiting conditions of the sessment of multiple motives in the percep- "physical attractiveness stereotype": Attribu- tion of male facial physical attractiveness. tions about divorce. Journal of Research in Per- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, sonality, 14:365-75. 59:61-72. Byrne, D. 1971. The attraction paradigm. New York: Curry, T. J., and R M. Emerson. 1970. Balance Academic Press. theory: A theory of interpersonal attraction? Byrne, D., and G. L. Clore. 1970. A reinforcement Sociometry, 33:216-38. model of evaluative responses. Personality: Curtis, R c., and K Miller. 1986. Believing an- An International Journal, 1:103-28. other likes or dislikes you: Behaviors making Byrne, D., C. R Ervin, and J. Lamberth. 1970. the beliefs come true. Journal of Personality Continuity between the experimental study and Social Pychology, 51:284-90. of attraction and real life computer dating. Daher, D. M., and P. G. Banikiotes. 1976. Interper- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, sonal attraction and rewarding aspects of 16:157-65. disclosure content and level. Journal of Per- Buss, D. M. 1984. Toward a psychology of person- sonality and Social Psychology, 33:492-96. environment (PE) correlation: The role of Darley, J. M., and E. Berscheid. 1967. Increasing spouse selection. Journal of Personality and So- liking as a result of the anticipation of per- cial Psychology, 47:361-77. sonal contact. Human Relations, 20:29-39. ---. 1985. Human mate selection. American Dion, K K, E. Berscheid, and E. Walster. 1972. Scientist, 73:47-51. What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personal- Buss, D. M., and M. Barnes. 1986. Preferences in ityand Social Psychology, 24:285-90. human mate selections. Journal of Personality Driscoll, R, K W. Davis, and M. E. Lipetz. and Social Psychology, 50:559-70. 1972. Parental interference and romantic love. Cash, T. F., and V.J. Derlega. 1978. The matching Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, hypothesis: Physical attractiveness among 24:1-10. same-sexed friends. Personality and Social Dutton, D. G., and A P. Aron. 1974. Some evi- Psychology Bulletin, 4:240-43. dence for heightened sexual attraction under Chaiken, S. 1979. Communicator physical attrac- conditions of high anxiety. Journal of Personal- tiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality ity and Social Psychology, 30:510-17. and Social Psychology, 37:1387-97. Ebbesen, E. B., G. L. Kjos, and V.J. Konecni. 1976. Clore, G. L., and D. Byrne. 1974. A reinforcement- Spatial ecology: Its effects on the choice of affect model of attraction. In Foundations of friends and enemies. Journal of Experimental interpersonal attraction, ed. T. L. Huston, 143- Social Psychology, 12: 505-18. 170. New York: Academic Press. Feinberg, R A, F. G. Miller, and G. A Ross. 1981. Condon, J. W., and W. D. Crano. 1988. Inferred Perceived and actual locus of control similar- evaluation and the relation between attitude ity among friends. Personality and Social Psy- and similarity and interpersonal attraction. chology Bulletin, 7:85-9. Feingold, A 1988. Matching for attractiveness in Ten days in a fall-out shelter. Sociometry, romantic partners and same-sex friends: A 37:163-73. meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psy- Harrison, A A 1977.Mere exposure. In Advances in chosocial Bulletin, 104:226-35. experimental social psychology, ed. L. Berkowitz, Festinger, L., S. Schachter, and K. W Back. 1950. vol. 10, 39-83. New York: Academic Press. Social pressures in informal groups: A study of Harrison, A A, and L. Saeed. 1977. Let's make a human factors in housing. New York: Harper & deal: An analysis of revelations and stipula- Brothers. tions in lonely hearts advertisements. Journal Foa, U. G. 1971. Interpersonal an economic re- of Personality and Social Psychology, 35:257-64. sources. Science, 71:345-54. Hatfield, E., and S. Sprecher. 1986. Mirror, mirror. Folkes, V. S., and D. O. Sears. 1977. Does every- . . The importance of looks in everyday life. Al- body like a liker? Journal of Experimental Social bany, New York: State University of New Psychology, 13:505-19. York Press. Friedman, H. S., R. E. Riggio, and D. R Casella. Hill, C. T.,Z. Rubin, and L. A Peplau.1976. Break- 1988. Nonverbal skill, personal charisma, ups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. and initial attraction. Personality and Social Journal of Social Issues, 32(1):147-68. Psychology Bulletin, 14:203-11. Hill, C. T., and D. E. Stull. 1981. Sex differences in Geiselman, R E., N. A Haight, and L. G. Kimata. effects of social and value similarity in same- 1984. Context effects in the perceived physi- sex friendship. Journal of Personality and Social cal attractiveness of faces. Journal of Experi- Psychology, 41:488-502. mental Social Psychology, 20:409-24. Hokanson, J. E., D. A Loewenstein, C. Hedeen, Gifford, R, and T. M. B. Gallagher. 1985. Sociabil- and M. J. Howes. 1986. Dysphoric college ity: Personality, social context, and physical students and roommates: A study of social setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- behaviors over a three-month period. Person- chology,48:1015-23. ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12:311-24. Goldman, W, and P. Lewis. 1977. Beautiful is Insko, C. A, and M. Wilson. 1977. Interpersonal good: Evidence that the physically attractive attraction as a function of social interaction. are more socially skillful. Journal of Experi- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, mental Social Psychology, 13:125-30. 35:903-11. Gormly, A V.1979. Behavioral effects of receiving Jackson, D. J., and T. L. Huston. 1975. Physical agreement or disagreement from a peer. Per- attractiveness and assertiveness. Journal of sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5:405-8. Social Psychology, 96:79-84. Gouaux, C. 1971. Induced affective states and in- Johnson, D. L., and Rusbult, C. E. 1989. Resisting terpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality temptation: Devaluation of alternate part- and Social Psychology, 20:37-43. ners as a means of maintaining commitment Green, S. K., D. R Buchanan, and S. K. Heuer. in close relationships. Journal of Personality 1984. Vvmners, losers, and choosers: A field and Social Psychology, 57:967-80. investigation of dating initiation. Personality Jones: E. E. 1964. Ingratiation: A social psychological and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10:502-11. analysis. New York: Appleton-Century- Greendlinger, V., and D. Byrne. 1985. Propinquity Crofts. and affiliative needs as joint determinants of Jones, W H., and B. N. Carpenter. 1986. Shyness, classroom friendships. Unpublished manu- social behavior, and relationships. In Shyness: script, SUNY at Albany. Perspectives on research and treatment, ed. W. Griffit, W. 1970. Environmental effects on inter- H. Jones, J. M. Cheek, ami S. R. Briggs. New personal affective behavior: Ambient effec- York: Plenum. tive temperature and attraction. Journal of Jones, W H., R Hannson, and A L. Phillips. 1978. Personality and Social Psychology, 15:240-44. Physical attractiveness and judgements of Griffitt, W., and R Veitch. 1974. Preacquaintance psychotherapy. Journal of Social Psychology, attitude similarity and attraction revisited: 105:79-84. Kandel, D. B. 1978. Similarity in real life adoles- Knight, J. A, and R. R. Vallacher. 1981.Interpersonal cent friendship pairs. Joumal of Personality engagement in social perception: The conse- and Social Psychology, 36:306-12. quence of getting into the action. Journal of Pe/,- Kandel, D. B., E. Single, and R. C. Kessler. 1976. sonality and Social Psychology, 40:990-99. The epidemiology of drug use among New Langlois, J. H. 1986. From the eye of the beholder York high school students: Distribution, to behavioral reality: Development of social trends, and change in rates of use. American behaviors as a function of physical attractive- Journal of Public Health, 66:43-53. ness. In The Ontario Symposium, Volume 3: Kaplan, M. F, and N. H. Anderson. 1973. Infor- Physical appearance, stigmata, and social behav- mation integration theory and reinforcement ior, ed. C. P. Herman, M. P Zanna, & E. T theory as approaches to interpersonal attrac- Higgins, 23-51. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Langlois, J. H., and L. A Roggman.1990. Attrac- ogy, 28:301-12. tive faces are only average. Psychological Sci- Kelley, H. H., E. Berscheid, A Christensen, J. H. ence, 1:115-21. Harvey, T L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClin- Leary, M. R. 1983. Understanding social anxiety: So- tock, L. A Peplau, and D. R. Peterson. 1983. cial, pe/'sonality, and clinical perspectives. Bev- Close relationships. New York: Freeman. erly Hills, CA: Sage. Kenny, D. A, and W. Nasby. 1980. Splitting the ---. 1987. A self-presentational model for reciprocity correlation. Joumal of Personality treatment of social anxieties. In Social proc- and Social Psychology, 38:249-56. esses in clinical and counseling psychology, ed. Kenrick, D. T, and R. B. Cialdini. 1977. Romantic J. E. Maddux, C. D. Stoltenberg, and R. attraction: Misattribution versus reinforce- Rosenwein, 126-138. New York: Springer- ment explanations. Joumal of Personality and Verlag. Social Psychology, 35: 381-91. Levinger, G., D. J. Senn, and B.W. Jorgensen. 1970. Kenrick, D. T., R. B.Cialdini, and D. E. Linder. 1979. Progress towards permanence in courtship: Misattribution under fear-producing circum- A test of the Kerckhoff-Davis hypothesis. So- stances: Four failures to replicate. Personality ciometry, 33:427-43. and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5:329-34. Lydon, J. E., D. W. Jamieson, and M. P Zanna. Kenrick, D. T, and S. E. Gutierres. 1980. Contrast 1988. Interpersonal similarity and the social effects and judgements of physical attractive- and intellectual dimensions of first impres- ness: When beauty becomes a social problem. sions. Social Cognition, 6:269-86. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Maddux, J. E., L. W. Norton, and M. R. Leary. 38:131-40. 1988. Cognitive components of social anxi- Kenrick, D. T, S. E. Gutierres, and L. L. Goldberg. ety: An investigation of the integration of 1989. Influence of popular erotica on judge- self-presentation theory and self-efficacy the- ments of strangers and mates. Journal of Ex- ory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, perimental Social Psychology, 25:159-67. 6:180-90. Kerckhoff, A c., and K. E. Davis. 1962. Value May, J. L., and P A Hamilton. 1980. Effects of consensus and need complentarity in mate musically evoked affect on woman's inter- selection. American Sociological Review, personal attraction toward and perceptual 27:295-303. judgements of physical attractiveness of Kernis, M. H., and L. Wheeler. 1981. Beautiful men. Motivation and Emotion, 4:217-28. friends and ugly strangers: Radiation and McAdams, D. P 1982. Intimacy motivation. In contrast effects in perceptions of same-sex Motivation and society, ed. A J. Stewart, 133- pairs. Personality and Social Pfiychology Bulle- 171. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. tin, 7:617-20. McAdams, D. P, and F B. Bryant. 1987. Intimacy Kipnis, D. M. 1957. Interaction between members motivation and subjective mental health in a of bomber crews as a determinant of so- nationwide sample. Journal of Personality, ciometric choice. Human Relations, 10:263-70. 55:395-414. ~------·1111\;:;.

McAdams, D. P., S. Healy, and S. Krause. 1984. So- perceived risk versus benefits. Journal of Per- cial motives and friendship patterns. Journal of sonality and Social Psychology, 52:399-408. Personality and Social Psychology, 47:828-38. Price, R. A., and S. S. Vandenberg. 1979. Matching McAdams, D. P., and G. E. Vaillant. 1982. Inti- for physical attractiveness. Personality and So- macy motivation and psychosocial adjust- cial Psychology Bulletin, 5:398-400. ment: A longitudnal study. Journal of Reis, H. T., J. Nezlek and L. Wheeler. 1980. Personality Assessment, 46:586-93. Physical attractiveness in social interac- McAllister, H. A, and N. J. Bregman. 1983. Self- tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- disclosure and liking: An integration theory chology,38:604-17. approach. Journal of Personality, 51:202-12. Riskind, J. H., and D. W. Wilson. 1982. Inter- McClelland, D. C. 1951. Personality. New York: personal attraction for the competitive Holt, Rinehart & Winston. person: Unscrambling the competition para- ---. 1985. How motives, skills, and values de- dox. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, termine what people do. American Psycholo- 12:444-52. gist, 40:812-25. Roberts, M. c., S. K Wurtele, R. Boone, V. Metts, Moreland, R. L., and R. B. Zajonc. 1982. Exposure and V. Smith. 1981. Toward a reconceptuali- effects may not depend on stimulus recogni- zation of the reciprocal imitation phenome- tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- non: Two experiments. Journal of Research in ogy,37:1085-89. Personality, 15:447-59. Nahemow, L., and M. P. Lawton. 1975. Similarity Rofe, Y. 1984. Stress and affiliation: A utility the- and propinquity in friendship formation. ory. Psychological Review, 91:235-50. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Rubin, Z. 1973. Liking and loving. New York: Holt, 33:205-13. Rinehart & Winston. Newcomb, T. M. 1961. The acquaintance process. Russ, R. c., J. A Gold, and W. F. Stone. 1980. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Opportunity for thought as a mediator of Novak, D. W., and M. J. Lerner. 1968. Rejection as attraction to a dissimilar stranger: A further a consequence of perceived similarity. Journal test of an information seeking interpreta- of Personality and Social Psychology, 9:147-52. tion. Journal of Experimental 'Social Psychol- Palmer, J., and D. Byrne. 1970. Attraction toward ogy, 16:562-72. dominant and submissive strangers: Similar- Sachs, D. H. 1976. The effects of similarity, evalu- ity versus complimentarity. Journal of Experi- ation, and self-esteem on interpersonal at- mental Research in Personality, 4:108-15. traction. Representative Research in Social Pennebaker, J. w., M. A Dyer, R. J. Caulkins, D. L. Psychology, 7:44-50. Litowitz, P. L. Ackreman, D. B. Anderson, Saegert, S., W. Swap, and R. B. Zajonc. 1973. Ex- and K M. McGraw. 1979. Don't the girls get posure, context, and interpersonal attraction. prettier at closing time: A country and west- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, ern application to psychology. Personality and 25:234-42. Social Psychology Bulletin, 5:122-25. Sallada, E. K, D. T. Kenrick, and B. Vershure. Perlman, D., and S. Oskamp. 1971. The effects of 1987. Dominance and heterosexual attrac- picture context and exposure frequency on tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- evaluations of negroes and whites. Journal of ogy,52:730-38. Experimental Social Psychology, 7:503-14. Sarnoff, I., and P. Zimbardo. 1961. Anxiety, fear, Perlman, D., and L. A Peplau. 1981. Toward a and social affiliation. Journal of Abnormal and social psychology of loneliness. In Personal Social Psychology, 62:356-63. relationships 3: Personal relationships in disor- Schachter, S. 1959. The psychology of affiliation: Ex- der, ed. S. Duck and R. Gilmore, 31-56. New perimental studies of the sources of gregarious- York: Academic Press. ness. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Pietromonaco, P. R., and K S. Rook. 1987. Deci- Schlenker, B. R., and M. R. Leary. 1982. Social sion style in depression: The contribution of anxiety and self-preservation: A conceptuali- zation and model. Psychological Bulletin, Swap, W. C. 1977. Interpersonal attraction and 92:641459. repeated exposure to rewarders and punish- Segal, M. W. 1974. Alphabet and attraction: An ers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, unobtrusive measure of the effect of propin- 3:248-51. quity in a field setting. Journal of Personality Tesser, A 1988. Toward a self-evaluation mainte- and Social Psychology, 30:654-57. nance model of social behavior. In Advances Shrauger, J. S. 1975. Responses to evaluation as a in experimental social psychology, ed. L. Berk- function of initial self-perceptions. Psycho- owitz, vol. 21, 181-227. New York: Academic logical Bulletin, 82:581-96. Press. Sigall, H., and D. Landy. 1973. Radiating beauty: Thelen, M. H., N. M. Frautschi, M. C. Roberts, K. The effects of having a physically attractive D. Kirkland, and S. J. Dollinger. 1981. Being partner on person perception. Journal of Per- imitated, conformity, and social influence: sonality and Social Psychology, 28:218-24. An integrative review. Journal of Research in Simpson, J. A, S. W. Gangestad, and M. Biek. Personality, 15:403-26. 1992. Personality and nonverbal social be- Tyler, T. R, and D. O. Sears. 1977. Coming to like havior: The Dating Game revisited. Unpub- obnoxious people when we must live with lished manuscript, Texas A&M University. them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Simpson, J. A, S. W. Gangestad, and M. Lerma. ogy, 35:200-11. 1990. Perception of physical attractiveness: Umberson, D., and M. Hughes. 1984. The impact Mechanisms involved in the maintenance of of physical attractiveness on achievement romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and psychological well-being. Social Psychol- and Social Psychology, 59:1192-1201. ogy Quarterly, 50:227-36. Sloan, W. W., Jr., and C. Solano. 1984. The conver- Unger, R K., M. Hilderbrand, and T. Madar. 1982. sational styles of lonely males with strangers Physical attractiveness and assumptions and roommates. Personality and Social Psy- about social deviance: Some sex-by-sex com- chology Bulletin, 10:293-301. parisons. Personality and Social Psychology Snyder, C. R, and H. L. Fromkin. 1980. Unique- Bulletin, 8:293-301. ness: The human pursuit of difference. New Vaux, A 1988. Social and personal factors in lone- York: Plenum Press. liness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, Snyder, M., E. D. Tanke, and E. Berscheid. 1977. 6:462-71. Social perception and interpersonal behav- Veitch, R, and W. Griffitt. 1976. Good news-bad ior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social news: Affective and interpersonal effects. stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6:69-75. Psychology, 35:656-66. Waller, W. W. 1937. The rating and dating com- Spitzberg, B. H., and D. J. Carney. 1985. Loneli- plex. American Sociological Review, 2:727-37. ness and relationally competent communica- Walster, E., V. Aronson, D. Abrahams, and L. tion. Journal of Social and Personal Relations, Rottman. 1966. The importance of physical 2:387-402. attractiveness in dating behavior. Journal of Strack, S., and J. C. Coyne. 1983. Social confirma- Personality and Social Psychology, 4:508-16. tion of dysphoria: Shared and private reac- Walster, E., and G. W. Walster. 1963. Effects of tions to depression. Journal of Personality and expecting to be liked on choice of associates. Social Psychology, 44:798-806. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Strong, S. R, H. J. Hills, T. C. Kilmartin, H. 67:402-04. DeVries, K. Lanier, B. N. Nelson, D. Strick- Walster, E., G. Walster, J. Piliavin, and L. Schmidt. land, and C. W. Meyer. 1988. The dynamic 1973. "Playing hard to get": Understanding relations among interpersonal behaviors: A an elusive phenomenon. Journal of Personality test of complementarity and anticomplimen- and Social Psychology, 26:113-21. tarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Weiss, R S. 1973. Loneliness. Cambridge, MA: MIT ogy, 54:798-810. Press. Whyte, W. H., Jr. 1956. The organization man. New Wright, T. L., L. J. Ingraham, and D. R. Blackmer. York: Simon & Schuster. 1985. Simulaneous study of individual differ- Winch, R. F. 1958. Mate selection: A study of comple- ences and relationship effects on attraction. mentary needs. New York: Harper & Row. Journal of Personality and SociJ11Psychology, Wright, R. A., and R. J. Contrada. 1986. Dating 47:1059-62. selectivity and interpersonal attraction: To- Zajonc, R. B. 1968. Attitudinal effects of mere ex- ward a better understanding of the "elu- posure. Journal of Personality and SociJ11Psy- sive phenomenon." Journal of SociJ11 and chology Monograph Supplement, 9:1-27. Personal Relationships, 3:131-48. Zimbardo, P. G. 1977. Shyness. New York: Jove.

View publication stats